1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not accept the building plan proposal at its meeting held on June 04, 2020, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised, and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to the disposal of biowaste, hospital waste generated, inconsistency in the toilet layouts including positioning of doors etc. on every floor, an appropriate number of 3D views from the metro corridor side etc. and observed that most of the observations made by the Commission earlier have been incorporated/complied with. However, based on the detailed discussion held and revised scheme submitted along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-27052027040 dated 12.06.2020 and following observations are to be complied with:

a) All waste generated on the site including bio, surgical instruments etc., shall be disposed of in an environment-friendly manner as per applicable norms/guidelines/regulations etc.

b) Toilet layouts including door openings etc. suggested being consistent on every floor with appropriate provisions for plumbing shafts including their screening so as not to mar the aesthetics.

c) Green areas on the site shall be as per applicable norms/guidelines/ regulations etc.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the proposal at its meeting held on October 27, 2010, and did not approve the NOC for completion plan proposal at its meeting held on January 29, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-25012158004 dated 04.02.2021 and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the location provided for Pollution check arrangements at the egress could cause hindrances to the exiting vehicles, and also cause overcrowding. It was accordingly suggested to explore the possibility of relocating it at the entry after leaving sufficient unhindered spaces for the inward bound vehicles.

b) Also, 3D views of the pollution check arrangements indicated in the proposal show a new type of mechanism for pollution checking in the town. The Commission would like to know its overall detailed functioning/working etc. with reference images and would be appreciative of the architect to share the same in the subsequent submissions of petrol pumps.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 23, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The Commission did not consider the proposal at the request of the architect vide his email dated 25.06.2021.

4. Taking into consideration the deemed approval provisions under Ease of doing business, it was decided to return the proposal to the concerned
local body i.e. South DMC without consideration of the Commission.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal at its meeting held on April 12, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-09042123010 dated 16.04.2021 and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the location provided for Pollution check arrangements at the egress shall be visually, aesthetically appropraite so as not to mar the aesthetics. Also its current location may  cause hindrances to the exiting vehicles, and also cause overcrowding. It was accordingly suggested to explore the possibility of relocating it at the entry after leaving sufficient unhindered spaces for the inward bound vehicles.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the North DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on June 10, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alterations (demolishing the existing auditorium and proposing an academic block) received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-08062123015 dated 18.06.2021 and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) All toilets shall have light and ventilation provisions as per prevailing norms/regulations/guidelines etc.

b)   All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plans proposal at its meeting held on March 31, 2017. However, the NOC for Completion plan proposals was not approved in the meeting held on May 15, 2020, specific observations were given.

3. The revised completion plans proposal for NOC received (online) was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-06052048012 dated 22.05.2020 and found acceptable.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 03, 2008, and the revised building plan proposal was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on April 28, 2010. The NOC for the completion plan proposal was approved in the meeting held on November 24, 2010.

3. The building plan proposal for additions/alterations (addition of lifts and covering of terraces) was approved in the meeting held on October 26, 2016.

4. The revised building plan proposal for additions/alteration received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-19042122013 dated 27.04.2021 and the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

    
2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on August 10, 2000, and the NOC for completion plan approval was given in the meeting of the Commission held on February 12, 2008. The revised layout and building plan proposal was approved in the meeting of the Commission held on May 07, 2014.

3. The completion plans proposal for NOC of one floor (third floor only) received (online) was scrutinised and found acceptable.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on July 10, 2013.

3. The completion plans proposal for NOC received (online) was scrutinised and found acceptable.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the NDMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plans (additions/alterations) of the proposal at its meeting held on October 12, 2011.

1.    The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.

2.    The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 12, 2018.

3.    The revised conceptual building plan proposal received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised and the following observations are to be complied with:

a)      It was observed that different type of materials has been used on the façade but, in absence of the annotated 3d views, it was difficult to comprehend the overall scheme to consider the overall impact on the visual, and aesthetics. It was accordingly suggested to submit an appropriate number of annotated 3D views to make it clearer.

b)      The hospital edge faces an important road i.e. outer ring road connecting the city of Delhi to the neighbouring states. The Commission opines that considering the location of the hospital building, an appropriate number of 3D views from the outer ring road shall also be submitted to examine its overall impact on the urban, visual and aesthetic considerations and to introduce a pleasing experience for the city of Delhi to the visitors.

c)      The use of glass onthe façade shall be minimised.

d)      Transformers, DG Sets, Service equipment etc. could spoil the visual, environmental, urban, and aesthetic quality of the hospital complex. A scheme shall be submitted (3d views/plans etc.) to screen them using appropriate architectural mechanisms so as not to mar the aesthetics.

e)      All service equipment at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 & 12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org. by appropriate architectural mechanisms.

f) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.

4.     The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply in the subsequent submission.

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission did not approve the proposal for an integrated transit corridor development plan at its meeting held on March 23, 2021, specific observations were given. The concept of the proposal was accepted at its meeting held on June 03, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The proposal received (online) at the conceptual level was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to sustainability, installation of solar panels, carbon footprints etc. However, based on the detailed discussion held following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the proposal of this magnitude cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in the overall urban context and conjunction with the surrounding facilities. Therefore, 3D views of the proposal shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for a better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it more comprehensible.

b) The stretch for the ramp covers a substantial area and would have a strong influence on the overall urban aesthetics of the area and its surroundings. Also, the stretch lies in the vicinity of important public landmarks including Delhi Zoo, Old Fort, Delhi High Court, Pragati Maidan etc. which could expect a huge footfall in future (by both Indian and international tourists).

c) Thus, taking into consideration the visual, urban aesthetics including sustainability, it is suggested to
explore the possibility of assimilating solar panels into the ramp covering design or make provisions to replace the fabric with solar voltaic panels and sets an example for such other Indian cities showcasing best practices by efficient design juxtaposed with technology and energy efficiency.

d) The details as to how the incorporation of the solar photovoltaic panels into the design would help in reducing the carbon footprint of the site, and how much electricity could be generated via the design improvisations which could be fed directly into the grid shall be indicated in the revised scheme.

e) The Commission opines that the proposal of this magnitude have the potential to display work of public art imparting character, identity, culture, traditions, and the spirit of the city. The possibility of various options of a theme-based public artwork shall be explored and submitted.

4. Considering the impact of the proposal on the visual, environmental, urban aesthetics of the area, the architect was advised to adhere to the above observations & submit at least three options incorporating solar panels into the design along with a theme-based public artwork and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply in the subsequent submission.